VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 05:54:19 08/02/01 Thu
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: Re: legal defination to assault
In reply to: Angel 's message, "legal defination to assault" on 21:06:26 07/27/01 Fri

Hey Angel! Welcome back to the new board! :p
As you can see, the board's been pretty quiet since the move from SitePowerUp (although the trolling has stopped). :p

>probably the legal aspects is not something you think
>of in an assault situation.
>

Which is probably why it's better to think about them before hand. :)

>If someone breaks into you house, it's probably best
>to leave them alone or confront them with maximum
>intensity. The reason being, they shouldn't be there.
>Chances are, these drug crazed neo-nazis are probably
>armed to the teeth anyway. It's not as though they
>scratched their way through a front door.
>

Unfortunately, that argument would not stand in court.
Don't forget, criminals have rights too.

Although the law says "equal or lesser force," in reality, you can go one step forward.
If someone produces a weapon, you probably would not be charged if you broke someone's bones with your bare hands. If someone actually attempts to kill you (and producing a weapon is reasonable grounds to believe that your life is in danger), then by all means you can use maximum intensity.

>I don't think there's much point in saying - halt who
>goes there. it doesn't make logical sense to give away
>the advantage of surprise in combat. Just go in
>bizerked with broad swords swinging.
>

Only if the criminal himself is armed with something like a sword or firearm.
If someone breaks into your house, you can *NOT* do whatever you like to him. Yes, he is trespassing, but that does NOT give you the right to inflict grievious bodily harm.

If you see a burglar, then you are afraid that you're being robbed. Unless the burglar is carrying a weapon or makes a physical or verbal threat at you, then you have no legal grounds to believe that the burglar has any intentions outside robbery. I think the cops will let you attack him to some degree and restrain the suspect, but in any case, once an assailant is restrained (i.e.: you have them pinned or tied down), then you're actually not allowed to continue beating them up. That's just sadistic (because the guy is already clearly defeated and captured, all you have to do is wait for the police to come arrest him).

>For example it's really frustrating in Star trek, to
>watch the mighty Voyager goe for shields and evasive
>manuvours when confronted. Lots of problems would have
>been solved if they simply blasted their way though
>space.
>

Bah! Voyager sucks. :p

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.